* He says the energy input is very large. I say it's reasonable for it to be so, because it's converting a cheap form of energy into a valuable one
* He says it is CO2-intensive because of the large energy inputs. I say this is just a reflection of the whole energy economy being CO2-intensive; that in principle the inputs can be CO2-free, and so biofuels can be CO2-neutral. (And they unique in this aspect; there is no other way to make CO2-neutral hydrocarbons, short of chemically scrubbing CO2 from the atmosphere.)
Comments
I'm having trouble following your point. He says the "input is very large" and you're arguing that the input doesn't have to be large?
More than one thread:
* He says the energy input is very large. I say it's reasonable for it to be so, because it's converting a cheap form of energy into a valuable one
* He says it is CO2-intensive because of the large energy inputs. I say this is just a reflection of the whole energy economy being CO2-intensive; that in principle the inputs can be CO2-free, and so biofuels can be CO2-neutral. (And they unique in this aspect; there is no other way to make CO2-neutral hydrocarbons, short of chemically scrubbing CO2 from the atmosphere.)
Yes, the input is large (if you accept his numbers), but the inputs are stationary power and the output is portable power.